There are no GPU tasks. The GPU sieving program used for Cullen/Woodall only works on base 2. The CPU sieve will take the same amount of time as current TRP sieving (the newer 10G workunits). That's regardless of which base is being sieved, the job lengths have been balanced so they all take the same amount of time.

We won't be doing GCW LLR right away, we need to do lot of sieving to generate enough candidates for our BOINC users. LLR will start fast (under a minute on faster CPUs) but will grow quickly. There, different bases will take different times to run.

Will it start with a double check of the work already done on PRPNet port 12004? PRPNet is currently testing n*b^n + 1 and n*b^n - 1 for bases b for which no n is known yet, and at the moment is bringing each of them up from n=500,000 to n=1,000,000. /JeppeSN

Will it start with a double check of the work already done on PRPNet port 12004? PRPNet is currently testing n*b^n + 1 and n*b^n - 1 for bases b for which no n is known yet, and at the moment is bringing each of them up from n=500,000 to n=1,000,000. /JeppeSN

Correct. We will start with a double check of the PRPNet work on the remaining 15 bases.

After the double check is complete, we will check new candidates from all 15 bases simultaneously in size order. That should yield tasks that increase smoothly in duration rather than jumping back and forth from shorter to longer tasks.

That does imply, however, that any any given point in time, the N value being searched will be different for each base. Essentially, for any two bases b1 and b2, log(b1) * n1 ~= log(b2) * n2.
(Or, to be a bit more precise, log(n1) + log(b1) * n1 ~= log(n2) +log(b2) * n2.) That's just a fancy way of saying we're sorting the candidates in size order. :)

All of the remaining bases are Cullen (+1) numbers. Primes have been found for all of the Woodall (-1) bases.
____________Please do not PM me with support questions. Ask on the forums instead. Thank you!

How much advance notification will we be given before each of the two new projects goes live in BOINC?

It's hard to say, but probably not much. Once everything is ready, it's hard to justify not turning it on and making it available to everyone as soon as possible. But it depends. Sometimes we're ready but want to synchronize the launch with a specific event, e.g., the end of a challenge.

____________Please do not PM me with support questions. Ask on the forums instead. Thank you!

How much advance notification will we be given before each of the two new projects goes live in BOINC?

It's hard to say, but probably not much. Once everything is ready, it's hard to justify not turning it on and making it available to everyone as soon as possible. But it depends. Sometimes we're ready but want to synchronize the launch with a specific event, e.g., the end of a challenge.

Michael,

How about modifying the Preferences so that we can preselect GCW Sieve right now and the units will download automatically once they become available on their own? By preselecting GCW Sieve right now with our existing project of choice, no CPU cycles are lost anyway.

Edit: All of the above if synchronization (as per below) is not involved.

How much advance notification will we be given before each of the two new projects goes live in BOINC?

It's hard to say, but probably not much. Once everything is ready, it's hard to justify not turning it on and making it available to everyone as soon as possible. But it depends. Sometimes we're ready but want to synchronize the launch with a specific event, e.g., the end of a challenge.

Michael,

How about modifying the Preferences so that we can preselect GCW Sieve right now and the units will download automatically once they become available on their own? By preselecting GCW Sieve right now with our existing project of choice, no CPU cycles are lost anyway.

Edit: All of the above if synchronization (as per below) is not involved.

Enabling task selection is the last part to get turned on.
____________Please do not PM me with support questions. Ask on the forums instead. Thank you!

We won't be doing GCW LLR right away, we need to do lot of sieving to generate enough candidates for our BOINC users. LLR will start fast (under a minute on faster CPUs) but will grow quickly. There, different bases will take different times to run.

How long will the initial numbers be, in digits?
____________
6603*2^1411654+1 — 424955 digit PPSE (DC)

It will be based on speed, not size, but if past double checks are any indication, it will be in the 100K to 200K digit range. ESP started around 150K digits and SR5 started around 140K digits.
____________Please do not PM me with support questions. Ask on the forums instead. Thank you!

I see tasks in progress but no means to download units via the Preferences page.

I did say the selection process is the very last thing to be turned on.

Before we let the public get tasks, we always want to run at least one task ourselves through the live system to make sure it's working. That's why you'll always see everything look "live" but have no way to select the tasks. That's intentional. We don't want thousands of tasks going out, get crunched, and then have to cancel all of them because we broke something.

And now that the first of our tasks have successfully completed, I've opened up GCW Sieve to the public. Enjoy!
____________Please do not PM me with support questions. Ask on the forums instead. Thank you!

After finishing couple of tasks that got validated, I got 201 (avg. 8.7391/task)

Looking at Generalized Cullen/Woodall sieving totals, there are 6216 totals tests and 16374 Factors found. I guess total test done are missing (or different from Total Tests). Where is number of tasks done so far?

Was the intention to make their duration difference (hence credit) as small as possible? The alternative would have been create all of them 500e6 for example (2000 WU for 1T).
____________My statsBadge score: 1*1 + 5*2 + 8*9 + 9*6 + 12*3 = 173

I guess total test done are missing (or different from Total Tests). Where is number of tasks done so far?

I decided against showing the number done. A single workunit can be both in the queued for download and in-progress column at the same time. The old code subtracted both from the total existing number to get the "done" count. Plus, a "done" column like that is going to go to zero as those sieve workunits are purged after four days. Plus we have wildly varying amounts of sieving done for different bases and those users comparing bases would invariably ask why base 13 (test length 319M) has so many more done workunits showing than base 109 (test length 661M).

I started out grabbing code from the Cullen/Woodall sieving stats before finding out that it was not up to our standards today. If you run that status page it comes back with a single row of all zeroes. Why? Because it doesn't show any sieving range that doesn't have active sieving workunits. And since that project is currently suspended there aren't any. So even though the number of factors is easily available, you can't see it. I decided that I always wanted to see the number of factors found per range and that the workunit information would be the temporary part of it. Each of the bases will eventually have a bunch of (green) rows like the TRP sieving stats show and they're all going to have zeroes for number of workunits. So I didn't see a great need to show the very temporary number of how many were done but not yet purged.

One more question: was the optimal sieving depth (or our sieving goal) established?
(sorry if I've missed that information).
I know we are currently in early stages (~0,5T) but to get the idea...
____________My statsBadge score: 1*1 + 5*2 + 8*9 + 9*6 + 12*3 = 173

One more question: was the optimal sieving depth (or our sieving goal) established?
(sorry if I've missed that information).
I know we are currently in early stages (~0,5T) but to get the idea...

Truth is we have only barely begun to think about optimal depth.

We will start GCW LLR when we're optimally sieved for GCW candidates up to 4 million digits. How long that will take depends on how much GCW work gets crunched. I expect that will be somewhere in the 3 to 6 month range, but that's just a guess.

We're sieving up through candidates of 15 million digits, so that defines the optimal sieve depth for when GCW sieving will end. Roughly speaking, if we reach an optimal depth for 4 million digits in 3 to 6 months, we should reach the optimal depth for 15 million digits in 4 to 8 years. But all of those estimates are very preliminary.
____________Please do not PM me with support questions. Ask on the forums instead. Thank you!

How is progress on the sieve progressing now that the project is in BOINC compared to when it was a manual effort?

You're asking to compare apple and oranges. The BOINC jobs are sieving a much wider n range at much lower p values (because so much of that n range is new). Comparing the count of factors found isn't relevant because the lower p levels here mean we're going to find far more factors. Comparing the amount of p range sieved is also not that relevant since the n range is as much as 26x larger than the n range we were sieving manually (it varies by base). A range 26 times wider takes 26 times as long.

I'm not even bothering to calculate this stuff for my own use, so you'll have to forgive me not doing it for you. Comparing them isn't relevant to anything. The only thing I'm currently interested in is the optimal sieving level, which we're very far from. But I can tell you this: Doing this in manual sieving would have taken multiple tens of years. The only way to get enough properly sieved candidates was by putting sieving on BOINC. With BOINC sieving I expect to be able to start LLR-testing GCW next year.

How is progress on the sieve progressing now that the project is in BOINC compared to when it was a manual effort?

You're asking to compare apple and oranges. The BOINC jobs are sieving a much wider n range at much lower p values (because so much of that n range is new). Comparing the count of factors found isn't relevant because the lower p levels here mean we're going to find far more factors. Comparing the amount of p range sieved is also not that relevant since the n range is as much as 26x larger than the n range we were sieving manually (it varies by base). A range 26 times wider takes 26 times as long.

I'm not even bothering to calculate this stuff for my own use, so you'll have to forgive me not doing it for you. Comparing them isn't relevant to anything. The only thing I'm currently interested in is the optimal sieving level, which we're very far from. But I can tell you this: Doing this in manual sieving would have taken multiple tens of years. The only way to get enough properly sieved candidates was by putting sieving on BOINC. With BOINC sieving I expect to be able to start LLR-testing GCW next year.

Thanks, I didn't realize that it wasn't going to be apples to apples.
____________